The NSA leaker has come forward in a June 9 interview on The Guardian, the British media outlet that broke the story of the NSA acquisition of phone records and access to online activity. Edward Snowden, a 29-year-old former technical assistant for the CIA, has come forward to identify himself as the NSA whistleblower being sought in the release of NSA files. He said he is not hiding because he has not done anything wrong.

Snowden is currently an employee of a defense contractor Booz Allen Hamilton, and he has previously worked for various others. This has put him inside the National Security Agency for the last four years.

The NSA leaker, aware that he would be facing the ire of the U.S. government, made the choice to sacrifice his comfortable life in Hawaii and $200,000 salary to make the public aware of the depth of the privacy infringements that he claims exist. He says he doesn't want to live in a society like that.

The NSA leaker was a former CIA tech assistant

"The government has granted itself power it is not entitled to. There is no public oversight. The result is people like myself have the latitude to go further than they are allowed to," he said.

The technology specialist is "holed up" in a motel in Hong Kong, basically waiting for the other shoe to drop.

He wrote a note that went with the second set of documents, according to The Guardian:

"I understand that I will be made to suffer for my actions," but "I will be satisfied if the federation of secret law, unequal pardon and irresistible executive powers that rule the world that I love are revealed even for an instant."

The head of NSA, James Clapper, has reported the leaks of the NSA documents as a crime. You can read about that here.

I came to the conclusion that it was illegal when I read the Fourth Amendment. I came to the conclusion that the Patriot Act was Illegal the same way. The fact that our government has written down words on paper and voted on illegal laws does not make them any less illegal.

I think a more accurate statement would be that it SHOULD be illegal. Under current US law and Supreme Court interpretation of the 4th, it isn't illegal.

The issue comes down to 2 things in my book.

#1 The Supreme Court is going to have to go back and look at the whole "third part" exception in light of new technology. As we move forward, more and more communication will require a 3 rd party and effectively eliminate any privacy protections we once had.

#2 We need to decide how much liberty we are willing to give up for safety. I am on the far extreme that thinks you better have a damn good reason for taking away even the slightest liberty. For example, I think seat belt laws are a ****ing disgrace. But if we as a society insist that safety is paramount... then I think we need to at least put some legal safeguards in place. One simple solution would be to keep the automated data collection but to anonymize it and require a court order to attach the data to specific people.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the 4th amendment. I'll help familiarize you with it. It reads as follows:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the 4th amendment. I'll help familiarize you with it. It reads as follows:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

I think a more accurate statement would be that it SHOULD be illegal. Under current US law and Supreme Court interpretation of the 4th, it isn't illegal.

The issue comes down to 2 things in my book.

#1 The Supreme Court is going to have to go back and look at the whole "third part" exception in light of new technology. As we move forward, more and more communication will require a 3 rd party and effectively eliminate any privacy protections we once had.

#2 We need to decide how much liberty we are willing to give up for safety. I am on the far extreme that thinks you better have a damn good reason for taking away even the slightest liberty. For example, I think seat belt laws are a ****ing disgrace. But if we as a society insist that safety is paramount... then I think we need to at least put some legal safeguards in place. One simple solution would be to keep the automated data collection but to anonymize it and require a court order to attach the data to specific people.

Yep.

__________________I think the young people enjoy it when I "get down," verbally, don't you?

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the 4th amendment. I'll help familiarize you with it. It reads as follows:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Unfortunately, as Amnorix has pointed out, the 4th does NOT apply to data held by a 3rd party. You effectively waived your 4th Amendment rights when you "gave" your data to the phone company, or Facebook, or Google, etc etc

Well, then Snowden should have simply kept doing what was legal, right?

After all, "I was just following orders" has always been a good answer, hasn't it?

Snowden feels that he has done nothing WRONG... huge difference between that and saying he did nothing ILLEGAL. He knows he broke the law (numerous laws actually) but he felt that it was his moral duty to expose wrongdoing. There are plenty of wrong actions that are legal and plenty of right actions that are illegal. Let's not confuse the two.

This guy is in huge trouble IMO. Rep Peter King (R) thinks he needs to extradited quickly and put on trial.

Quote:

“If Edward Snowden did in fact leak the NSA data as he claims, the United States government must prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law and begin extradition proceedings at the earliest date,” said Rep. Peter King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee, in The Guardian, a British paper. “The United States must make it clear that no country should be granting this individual asylum. This is a matter of extraordinary consequence to American intelligence.”
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz2Vq35MIdP

Unfortunately, as Amnorix has pointed out, the 4th does NOT apply to data held by a 3rd party. You effectively waived your 4th Amendment rights when you "gave" your data to the phone company, or Facebook, or Google, etc etc